What are the rights of publicity & privacy for deceased persons?

Useful Rulings on Rights of Publicity & Privacy for Deceased Persons

Recent Rulings on Rights of Publicity & Privacy for Deceased Persons

JEROME OGDEN VS LIUMEIBANG ORGANIZATION, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

Defendants argue that “Plaintiff’s Prayer for Punitive Damages should be stricken, as the FAC is devoid of sufficient facts to establish that LMB or Wu ever acted with any form of malice, fraud or oppression toward Decedent [sic].” (Motion, p. 8:17-19.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

DAVID WEISMAN VS MICHAEL POST

Background: On October 24, 2014, plaintiff David Weisman brought this action against defendant Michael Post to determine that defendant had no publicity rights under Civil Code § 3344.1 because Edie Sedgwick was not a “deceased personality” as defined in that statute. On August 26, 2019, the court entered judgment after a court trial in favor of plaintiff.

  • Hearing

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

DAVID WEISMAN VS MICHAEL POST

Background: On October 24, 2014, plaintiff David Weisman brought this action against defendant Michael Post to determine that defendant had no publicity rights under Civil Code § 3344.1 because Edie Sedgwick was not a “deceased personality” as defined in that statute. On August 26, 2019, the court entered judgment after a court trial in favor of plaintiff. The court specifically ordered and decreed that plaintiff was the prevailing party entitled to costs of suit.

  • Hearing

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

AUTRY VS GENTILE

The press release appears to be used for publicity or promotional use intended to elicit donations from readers. Therefore, the press release appears to be commercial speech. Moving Parties contend that even if the press release constitutes commercial speech, it falls into the public affairs exception to Civ. Code §3344.

  • Hearing

AUTRY VS GENTILE

Therefore, the misuse of the publicity was unlawful and deceptive. Because Moving Parties failed to establish that they did not violate Civ. Code §3344 and 3344.1, as stated above, there are triable issues as to whether the violated the UCL.

  • Hearing

HUBERT HANSEN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY TRUST VS THE COCA COLA COMPANY

See Civil Code § 3344.1(b) ("The [publicity] rights ... shall be deemed to have existed at the time of death of any deceased personality who died prior to January 1, 1985, and ... shall vest in the persons entitled to these property rights under the testamentary instrument of the deceased personality effective as of the date of his or her death.")

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

HUBERT HANSEN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY TRUST VS THE COCA COLA COMPANY

See Civil Code § 3344.1(b) ("The [publicity] rights ... shall be deemed to have existed at the time of death of any deceased personality who died prior to January 1, 1985, and ... shall vest in the persons entitled to these property rights under the testamentary instrument of the deceased personality effective as of the date of his or her death.")

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

HUBERT HANSEN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY TRUST VS THE COCA COLA COMPANY

See Civil Code § 3344.1(b) ("The [publicity] rights ... shall be deemed to have existed at the time of death of any deceased personality who died prior to January 1, 1985, and ... shall vest in the persons entitled to these property rights under the testamentary instrument of the deceased personality effective as of the date of his or her death.")

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

HUBERT HANSEN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY TRUST VS THE COCA COLA COMPANY

See Civil Code § 3344.1(b) ("The [publicity] rights ... shall be deemed to have existed at the time of death of any deceased personality who died prior to January 1, 1985, and ... shall vest in the persons entitled to these property rights under the testamentary instrument of the deceased personality effective as of the date of his or her death.")

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

HUBERT HANSEN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY TRUST VS THE COCA COLA COMPANY

See Civil Code § 3344.1(b) ("The [publicity] rights ... shall be deemed to have existed at the time of death of any deceased personality who died prior to January 1, 1985, and ... shall vest in the persons entitled to these property rights under the testamentary instrument of the deceased personality effective as of the date of his or her death.")

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

HUBERT HANSEN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY TRUST VS THE COCA COLA COMPANY

See Civil Code § 3344.1(b) ("The [publicity] rights ... shall be deemed to have existed at the time of death of any deceased personality who died prior to January 1, 1985, and ... shall vest in the persons entitled to these property rights under the testamentary instrument of the deceased personality effective as of the date of his or her death.")

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

RAFAEL A. GODOY ET AL VS THE ARGEN CORPORATION ET AL

On March 9, 1998, decedent visited Dr. Patrick Walsh, who conducted a lung biopsy and diagnosed decedent with Chronic Beryllium Disease, or CBD. SS ¶ 10. Dr. Walsh testified that he told decedent that decedent should look into the possibility of exposure to beryllium at his work and that he should avoid all contact with beryllium. DAOE Exh. 5, 26:15-19, 27:10-17. When decedent met with Dr. Walsh again in February 1999, Dr. Walsh again emphasized that decedent should avoid all contact with beryllium.

  • Hearing

DAVID WEISMAN VS MICHAEL POST

The unauthorized use of the publicity rights of a deceased personality’s name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness shall entitle the owner of the publicity rights to damages.

  • Hearing

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

John Swarthout, et al. v. Forward Air Solutions, Inc. et al. 15CVP0194

John and Terri Swarthout individually and on behalf of their deceased son Taylor Swarthout’s estate (collectively Plaintiffs) bring this action against Forward Air Solutions, Inc. (FASI), Forward Air, Inc. (FAI) and others for the wrongful death of Taylor in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on Highway 101 in Paso Robles. Taylor and three others were killed when a vehicle they were riding in collided with a tractor trailer rig that had turned left to cross the southbound lanes of Highway 101.

  • Hearing

  • County

    San Luis Obispo County, CA

I G ET AL VS LEEWAY SCHOOL FOR EDUCATIONAL THERAPY ET AL

Personal security in a society saturated daily with publicity about its members requires protection not only from governmental intrusion, but some basic bulwark of defense against private commercial enterprises which derive profits from gathering and disseminating information. Miller, 187 Cal.App.3d at 1487-1488.

  • Hearing

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

JENNI RIVERA ENTERPRISES LLC VS PETE SALGADO ET AL

Salgado argues that he owes no fiduciary duty to JRE because he never contracted with JRE not to disclose information about Rivera, and Rivera, deceased, has no privacy rights. Salgado’s arguments fail. The NDA was made between JRE and Salgado: “AGREEMENT entered into the 17th day of September 2013, by and between Jenni Rivera Enterprise, Inc. … and Pete Salgado ….”

  • Hearing

ROSE V. HEALTHCOMP, INC.

(See also 5 Witkin, Summary 10th Torts § 653 (2005)—no relational right to privacy claims of decedent.) None of these cases considered the issue in the context of the case at bench: appointing a successor in interest to carry on a deceased plaintiff’s privacy claims regarding conduct occurring before her death. Therefore, they are inapposite. Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312 and Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5(a), no further written order is necessary.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

GALLICK VS SIMI VALLEY

The nature and scope of the relationship between Plaintiffs and decedent Helen is arguably relevant; at least as to the issue of nature and scope of the damages proximately caused. The court denies the Motion as to those portions of paragraphs 7, 9, and 17. With some notable exceptions, the amount of money damages sought by a plaintiff must be stated in the complaint. CCP §425.10(a)(2).

  • Hearing

LORI SELLERS VS HUGUETTE CLARK ET AL

Clark is now deceased and can no longer explain the alleged encounter with plaintiff in 1985. Ms. Clark died on May 24, 2011, as reflected in the documents attached to the complaint. (Comp., Attach. 1E.) Even if Ms. Clark were still alive, her memory of the events would likely have faded over the three decades since she made the alleged �gift.� See, Garrity v.

  • Hearing

SCOTT PATRICK LEE VS. ROBERT FLORINE

P's decedent was killed on a motorcycle along Victoria Avenue. Ds move to change "venue" another county (pp. 1, 4) , or to Simi Valley (pp.2, 4), arguing that media reports, published newspaper articles and "blog" postings have "canonized" P's decedent and "demonized" D driver. Ds claim that they cannot have a fair trial in Ventura. Ds assert that it is "not likely Simi Valley jurors read the Ventura Star."

  • Hearing

ANTHONY PEDEFERRI VS. JEREMY JAMES WHITE

Some of the publicity, whether in the media or on the Internet, appears to describe the effect of the accident on plaintiff Pedeferri, and this coverage clearly affects the interests of all defendants. Yet, "perfection is not required; some knowledge of the case on the part of some jurors is often unavoidable." (People v. Williams, supra, 48 Cal.3d, at p. 1129.)

  • Hearing

KIM KLEIN ET AL VS ROBERT KLEIN ESTATE ET AL

Defendants Estate of Michael Klein, Robert Klein, Executor of the Estate of Michael Klein deceased, and Robert Klein, Trustee of the Michael Klein Adminstrative Trust are represented by Peter Ezzell, Nancy Lucas, Gary Hill and Timothy Trager. d. Defendant Islas Secas S.A. is represented by Gary Hill and Timothy Trager. (Note: I customarily publish the above listing (a-d only) by projecting it on my overhead projector so the potential jurors can visualize the names of counsel and their clients.

  • Hearing

1

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we load this page.